serving the whole table its mains simultaneously

[Sher.eats]

Title should be "Serving main courses to all guests on same table at the same time"

=

Delivering (different) main courses to all guests on a table at the same time requires effort. Even at restaurants with no ALC, there could be both a vegetarian tasting and a main tasting. At most places it is very unlikely for a table to all order the same main course.

Without this requirement, there would be less pressure on chefs, can this be quantified? Will the kitchen require less staff or equipment?

At the minimum some dishes which would have been chucked because the other dish took extra long wouldn't have been wasted...

Edited February 4, 2009 by Sher.eats (log)

[Maitre D'Hell]

While I agree that this would be easier on the kitchen, common table etiquette would require you to wait until all persons are served--guests of honor, if any, last--before you begin eating.

That being said, a local ninja-themed sushi joint that I dig will sometimes have 20-30 minute waits between entrees to one table.

[Sher.eats]

While I agree that this would be easier on the kitchen, common table etiquette would require you to wait until all persons are served--guests of honor, if any, last--before you begin eating.

That being said, a local ninja-themed sushi joint that I dig will sometimes have 20-30 minute waits between entrees to one table.

←

what if the price was 50% off if dishes came out at different times? (random number but there must be a tipping point)

or what if the food will be better (inevitable, less stress = better food)?

[whatsaMcGee]

Is this a serious thread? I honestly can't tell. It's incredibly easy to fire several dishes at the same time on the same station.

[Qwerty]

Anything can fly against the wind if done correctly or marketed in such a way that it works. I think in order to succeed a place would have to make it known and be known for stuff coming out "when it's ready" as opposed to all at the same time. It could even work in the favor of the establishment (to a degree) if done properly.

Tapas places (at least some I've been to) have that mentality but tapas are a different style of eating than a traditional tasting menu or ALC menu.

I would argue with you that getting different entrees to hit the pass at the same time is not difficult if you have decent cooks and good communication/expedition. In my experience, the typical "order, fire, pickup" system works just fine. I'm curious what it is that seems difficult about cooking different entrees and making sure they go out to the table at the same time?

What is so hard and stressful about it?

[Sher.eats]

Is this a serious thread?  I honestly can't tell.  It's incredibly easy to fire several dishes at the same time on the same station.

←

Anything can fly against the wind if done correctly or marketed in such a way that it works. I think in order to succeed a place would have to make it known and be known for stuff coming out "when it's ready" as opposed to all at the same time. It could even work in the favor of the establishment (to a degree) if done properly.

Tapas places (at least some I've been to) have that mentality but tapas are a different style of eating than a traditional tasting menu or ALC menu.

I would argue with you that getting different entrees to hit the pass at the same time is not difficult if you have decent cooks and good communication/expedition. In my experience, the typical "order, fire, pickup" system works just fine. I'm curious what it is that seems difficult about cooking different entrees and making sure they go out to the table at the same time?

What is so hard and stressful about it?

←

hey Qwerty, whatsamcgee,

i'm not saying its difficult on an absolute scale, most restaurants manage it fine yes. but do we not agree it is more difficult in comparison to if there wasn't this restriction?

my main point is asking whether this extra difficulty (extent unknown) has a cost to it.

What is so hard and stressful about it?

←

Nothing. The OP has never worked in a kitchen before.

←

haha well, you never had the scenario where something has to be remade cause something else took extra long or was rejected at the pass?

Edited February 4, 2009 by Sher.eats (log)

[RAHiggins1]

Serving the whole table is essential to turning the table. Restaurants make money off how many times a table can be in an evening. Serving food at different times ensures that the guests stay longer than they should.

[Sher.eats]

Serving the whole table is essential to turning the table. Restaurants make money off how many times a table can be in an evening. Serving food at different times ensures that the guests stay longer than they should.

←

well normally the dishes go out when the slowest dish is done, if served separately the bottleneck is still the slowest slowest dish...no change...

[Florida]

There's definately a cost.

I've been to a number of inexpensive ethnic restaurants where there seems to be absolutely no stigma attached to bringing a dish out when the dish is ready and not worrying about the rest of the table.

Of course, these tend to be the literal "Mom and Pop" type places where "Mom" works the front of house and "Pop" works the back. But that just proves the point - you can keep labor costs down by not hiring anymore people than absolutely necessary.

Not saying this is the way to run a restaurant, but I would agree there is a cost associated with it.

[whatsaMcGee]

haha well, you never had the scenario where something has to be remade cause something else took extra long or was rejected at the pass?

←

I have, but it is so infrequent that is does not come close to warranting a change. If it's happening too much, it means that you need a new employee, not a new system.

Edited February 5, 2009 by whatsaMcGee (log)

[Just Jim]

As I said in response to this post on another board, I think the difference in quality is minimal.

If there is that big of a difference in quality, it's the cook that needs improving, not the system.

Also, the trade off isn't worth it.

What is now easier for the cook is harder for the FOH.

They now have to make a trip for each diner, rather than each table.

If the food is only marginally better, but the service goes downhill, will I, the diner, be happy?

No.

And let's say you realize a tangible savings, and were able to pass it on to me.

Would I be happy as my partner finishes their Tempura Prawns as I wait for my Well Done Filet (not that I order leather, just hypothetically speaking)?

Again, no, I would not enjoy this scenario.

If I were dining alone, then yes, because the meal is now less expensive with no change in service.

But I rarely dine alone.

I hate the Steve Martin-esque spotlight.

[Sher.eats]

I guess I should have asked:

100 single diners vs 25 tables of 4

will the former be easier/cheap, by how much?

There's definately a cost.

I've been to a number of inexpensive ethnic restaurants where there seems to be absolutely no stigma attached to bringing a dish out when the dish is ready and not worrying about the rest of the table.

Of course, these tend to be the literal "Mom and Pop" type places where "Mom" works the front of house and "Pop" works the back.  But that just proves the point - you can keep labor costs down by not hiring anymore people than absolutely necessary.

Not saying this is the way to run a restaurant, but I would agree there is a cost associated with it.

←

hey Florida, first person to acknowledge my point....any guesstimates as to the extra cost being paid for the current system (= potential savings)...I know it would be a restaurant-by-restaurant calculation...

haha well, you never had the scenario where something has to be remade cause something else took extra long or was rejected at the pass?

←

I have, but it is so infrequent that is does not come close to warranting a change. If it's happening too much, it means that you need a new employee, not a new system.

←

hey whtsaMcGee, excluding the chucked dishes due to another late dishes, are you saying there will be no savings? (in the above scenario, 100x1 vs 25x4)

As I said in response to this post on another board, I think the difference in quality is minimal.

If there is that big of a difference in quality, it's the cook that needs improving, not the system.

Also, the trade off isn't worth it.

What is now easier for the cook is harder for the FOH.

They now have to make a trip for each diner, rather than each table.

If the food is only marginally better, but the service goes downhill, will I, the diner, be happy?

No.

And let's say you realize a tangible savings, and were able to pass it on to me.

Would I be happy as my partner finishes their Tempura Prawns as I wait for my Well Done Filet (not that I order leather, just hypothetically speaking)?

Again, no, I would not enjoy this scenario.

If I were dining alone, then yes, because the meal is now less expensive with no change in service.

But I rarely dine alone.

I hate the Steve Martin-esque spotlight.

←

hey Just Jim, point taken re: FOH, also point taken re: customers won't choose the minimal savings over inconvenience.

[Edward J]

I guess I should have asked:

100 single diners vs 25 tables of 4

will the former be easier/cheap, by how much?

There's definately a cost.

That would put a lot more stress on the FOH. And single diners ain't a-gonna drink much either, and they won't go big on appies or desserts. Meh. Lousy profit.

On one of your previous posts you mentioned a 50% price reduction if the dishes wouldn't come to the table at the same time.

50%?!!

How much do you mark up the items in the first place?

How do you expect to keep the doors open if you throw away half of your sales?

100 singles vs 25 4 tops is cheaper IF you run a self serve deli however.....

[Sher.eats]

I guess I should have asked:

100 single diners vs 25 tables of 4

will the former be easier/cheap, by how much?

There's definately a cost.

That would put a lot more stress on the FOH. And single diners ain't a-gonna drink much either, and they won't go big on appies or desserts. Meh. Lousy profit.

On one of your previous posts you mentioned a 50% price reduction if the dishes wouldn't come to the table at the same time.

50%?!!

How much do you mark up the items in the first place?

How do you expect to keep the doors open if you throw away half of your sales?

100 singles vs 25 4 tops is cheaper IF you run a self serve deli however.....

←

hey Edward J

the 100x1 vs 25x4 is purely from the perspective of the kitchen, I know the FOH and finance would not like the former.

the 50% figure I was asking Maitr'D hell at what figure would guests not mind different times serving, I'm guessing at half price I wouldn't mind, not that 50% will actually be saved.

back to the kitchen, you're saying 100x1 = 25x4?

[Edward J]

back to the kitchen, you're saying 100x1 = 25x4?

←

It's all the same. Cooking is just as much about timing as it is about ingredients or techniques. Same with pro sports, or just about any application you can think of.

[Matt R.]

25 four tops is easier than 100 singles all at different times. Duh.

-- Matt.

[Tiny]

25 four tops is easier than 100 singles all at different times.  Duh.

-- Matt.

←

agreed....

While we are talking hypothetical, impossible scenarios....I wish that 100 diners would show up at the correct time, the reservationists will have spaced them logically and they all order the tasting menu....there problem solved.... I also wish that the FOH would fire their dishes correctly every time and that I never get a hold fire ticket after I have already scooped all the ice cream and finished plating the entire table.....I also wish that the FOH could spell better, most of the notes they send on their tickets are jumbled hooked on phonics type attempts, that waste time and ruin plates in some instances...how hard is it to spell Vacherin or pineapple, really?

If you are looking for "hidden costs" there are plenty out there, but serving a table correctly at the same time is not one of them.

[Tri2Cook]

I can't really add anything that hasn't already been said. I don't care what the costs and inconveniences are, in my kitchen the table that dines together eats together. When one person gets their food and the other doesn't there's always that awkward time where the person with the food has to eat while the other watches or has to let their food sit and get cold until the other food arrives. Neither is acceptable.

[Jaymes]

Speaking just for myself and what matters to me, having the mains consistently arrive at differing times because that's what's most convenient for the kitchen would result in me never patronizing that restaurant.

And I'm sure I'm not alone, so I think the costs of doing it that way would be far greater in the long run.

There's nothing ruder than enjoying your meal while your tablemates sit there watching you, with nothing in front of them. And conversely, there's nothing more annoying than watching your expensive dinner get cold because the kitchen can't get its act together.